shelf_unshelve

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond those annotations: it does not mention that a confirmation prompt may appear, what gets removed, whether it affects multiple shelves, or how the operation behaves if the book is not on the shelf. Given the destructive nature, this is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for conciseness, though that conciseness comes at the cost of useful detail for a destructive tool with 22 parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive 22-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention the likely required book identifier, confirmation prompts, dry-run behavior, or whether removal applies to all shelves. The schema covers the parameters, but the description should still prepare the agent for the destructive nature of the call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 22 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not explain which parameters matter most for this specific operation, such as book-id, yes, or dry-run.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: remove a book from Goodreads shelves. It clearly distinguishes itself in intent from shelf_set, shelf_rate, and shelf_unrate. It does not explicitly name its siblings or clarify whether it removes from a specific shelf versus all shelves, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like shelf_set or shelf_unrate, nor any mention of prerequisites such as authentication or confirmation handling. The description only restates what the tool does, leaving selection conditions for the agent to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.